Calling all Americans Catholics! I have questions for you!

[seekerz]

How do you hold accountable a government that holds itself immune from prosecution?

Prosecution is not the only way to hold someone accountable and government officials who break the law are not immune to prosecution as far as I know.

The whole reason that malpractice insurance is so high is because of bogus million dollar lawsuits. That is one of the biggest reasons for tort reform. Then doctors and other medical professionals wouldn’t have to pay the phenomenal premiums. And they wouldn’t have to charge patients so much in order to cover those high premiums.
And the people are already paying phenomenal taxes for programs that will never work…because of beauracracy. Why keep feeding the system that is a failure, rather than taking it away from them…along with taking away the taxes they recieve from us…and the people will give. They already are. Why is it that your faith in humanity is so low? Most ordinary people will give when they see a need. Ordinary people realize that soon it could be them in need. But the fact of the matter is, with tort reform, the costs won’t be phenomenal any longer, so there will be less need for the help to begin with.

But really, let’s talk numbers here; percentages, whatever…By what degree would you expect tort reform to lower malpractice premiums? Let’s look at states where there are caps and show me where premiums have actually decreased. Further, show how those decreased premiums (if any) have contributed to decrease in the cost of health care.

I haven’t been able to find any evidence to support the idea that tort reform leads to lower health care costs, but maybe I’m ill-informed.

Even if I accept the premise that tort reform will lower costs, it’s not realistic to expect that a $10, 000 procedure is going to decrease in cost by anything more than a few hundred, maybe (most optimistically) a thousand or two. Are we to expect other things that factor into cost of a procedure (such as medical equipment and medication costs) to decrease as well?

Charitable giving is seasonal for a large proportion of donors. Much of it is based on emotional appeals (which is why so many charitable organisations often have to rely on heart-wrenching pics of children living in squalor). What graphic details of the needy sick would have to be mailed out to induce donations?

True, people are generous, but have you considered the scope of regular charitable giving that would be necessary to make health care available to all the needy even leaving out such variables as overhead, wastage and donor fatigue?

What resources would be available to charities to identify the genuinely needy? What criteria would be used? Maybe I’m a skeptic, but seeing the knee jerk reactions and strong emotions expressed on this board almost every time a medical issue is posted for discussion, I can’t help thinking that the needy sick would face difficulty getting help with some pretty sticky issues.

What some see as allowable use of hormonal preparations (the pill), others see as vanity or lack of tolerance for pain. C/sections, home births, infant feeding, circumcisions, STD’s, vaccinations, ectopic pregnancies, end of life care, even mental illness and disabilities … the list goes on and on of the issues we sometimes disagree on - just on this forum alone. With such strong stances on hot button issues, would donors really be able to just give and allow the recipients to make their own medical decisions?

I just don’t see it working but maybe I’m too pessimistic…

 

[ribozyme]

A distinction without a difference

Well according to Paul Gottfried (if you call him a leftist, I’ll laugh), fascism is mostly a response to left-wing extremism. But I consider him more scholarly than Goldberg.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4439928271419466391

 

[ribozyme]

I
Dumbest comment so far has to be the guy who boasted that Norway doesn’t spend much time worrying about diversity. (5 pages back or so).

I didn’t say that. I meant to say they do not focus as much energy focusing on diversity relative to the United States.

 

[thomfra]

How do you hold accountable a government that holds itself immune from prosecution?

Isn’t it obvious. You vote them out.

 

[thomfra]

Well according to Paul Gottfried (if you call him a leftist, I’ll laugh), fascism is mostly a response to left-wing extremism. But I consider him more scholarly than Goldberg.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4439928271419466391

To be honest ribozyme, I think these are just words that people on these posts seem to throw around without having a clue what they mean. That’s how one can (on this board, and this board only) be called a fascist-leftist-liberal… It’s almost embarrasing to read.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Prosecution is not the only way to hold someone accountable and government officials who break the law are not immune to prosecution as far as I know.

The army corp of engineers who is directly at fault for the break in the levees which flooded New Orleans in Katrina, was given immunity from prosecution, even though it had been well established that the fault was their own.

But really, let’s talk numbers here; percentages, whatever…By what degree would you expect tort reform to lower malpractice premiums? Let’s look at states where there are caps and show me where premiums have actually decreased. Further, show how those decreased premiums (if any) have contributed to decrease in the cost of health care.

***What states have caps? And what were the insurance premiums for doctos in those states before the caps? Where does it show what the premiums are now? And how high are the caps? Do the caps make all that much difference? Or are they capped at $100 million rather than $500 million? And how did they reform, in those states, the ability of people in those states from suing doctors because the sex of the baby is not what was told to them…along with all of the other bogus lawsuits? The majority of lawsuits are bogus…and that keeps the real victims from making a difference with a lawsuit. The purpose of a lawsuit should be to change the carelessness of doctors…by hitting them where it hurts. They should have to pay…out of pocket…for their carelessness which causes the loss of someone’s life or means of being able to support himself. That is the only thing that people should be able to sue a doctor for. And it shouldn’t be for $100 million dollars. And the lawyers shouldn’t be making 30 - 50 % of that award. this is ridiculous! It is killing the ability of poor people to be able to afford insurance and medical care. Insurance companies, lawyers and politicians are reaping the benefits.

there needs to be major reforms…but the government does not belong in the medical industry at all. They are untrustworthy and incompetent. Why should they be in control of healthcare?***

 

[rlg94086]

To be honest ribozyme, I think these are just words that people on these posts seem to throw around without having a clue what they mean. That’s how one can (on this board, and this board only) be called a fascist-leftist-liberal… It’s almost embarrasing to read.

That’s probably because you aren’t a neocon. (iow…the terms are thrown around by people on both ends of the political spectrum)

 

[thomfra]

That’s probably because you aren’t a neocon. (iow…the terms are thrown around by people on both ends of the political spectrum)

he he. good point.

 

[dmelosi]

To be honest ribozyme, I think these are just words that people on these posts seem to throw around without having a clue what they mean. That’s how one can (on this board, and this board only) be called a fascist-leftist-liberal… It’s almost embarrasing to read.

The problem with the radical left is that they don’t realize how out of touch they really are. They think they hold the views of most, and don’t realize the damage they are doing by escalating the decline in morality as they are.

 

[ribozyme]

The problem with the radical left is that they don’t realize how out of touch they really are. They think they hold the views of most, and don’t realize the damage they are doing by escalating the decline in morality as they are.

What do you mean declining morality? People who considered themselves left-winged have a different concept of morality than those who are right-winged.

For some information, consider Jonathan Haidt’s model:

faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pdf

And yes, the left-wing is out of touch.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Even if I accept the premise that tort reform will lower costs, it’s not realistic to expect that a $10, 000 procedure is going to decrease in cost by anything more than a few hundred, maybe (most optimistically) a thousand or two. Are we to expect other things that factor into cost of a procedure (such as medical equipment and medication costs) to decrease as well?

Charitable giving is seasonal for a large proportion of donors. Much of it is based on emotional appeals (which is why so many charitable organisations often have to rely on heart-wrenching pics of children living in squalor). What graphic details of the needy sick would have to be mailed out to induce donations?

True, people are generous, but have you considered the scope of regular charitable giving that would be necessary to make health care available to all the needy even leaving out such variables as overhead, wastage and donor fatigue?

What resources would be available to charities to identify the genuinely needy? What criteria would be used? Maybe I’m a skeptic, but seeing the knee jerk reactions and strong emotions expressed on this board almost every time a medical issue is posted for discussion, I can’t help thinking that the needy sick would face difficulty getting help with some pretty sticky issues.

What some see as allowable use of hormonal preparations (the pill), others see as vanity or lack of tolerance for pain. C/sections, home births, infant feeding, circumcisions, STD’s, vaccinations, ectopic pregnancies, end of life care, even mental illness and disabilities … the list goes on and on of the issues we sometimes disagree on - just on this forum alone. With such strong stances on hot button issues, would donors really be able to just give and allow the recipients to make their own medical decisions?

I just don’t see it working but maybe I’m too pessimistic…

I believe that there would be doctors and hospitals in the Church that would be much lower in cost that private run business hospitals. And the competition would drive the cost of medical care to go down. Especially if middle class Americans understand what is going on. They, along with the poor have been robbed by the medical industry.

Others with experience could offer medical equipment at lower costs, and many more people will buy from them…and the quality would probably be better than someone who does not consider God to be the almighty dollar.
That will cause competition, and costs will go down.

People give seasonally because that is when they are bombarded with requests, and it being a season of giving, they give more at those times.
The truth is, places and things like EWTN depend on charity all year long, and they always recieve it. Why? Because they are proven to do good things with the money. Why? Because the donators know exactly what the money is being used for.

So, if the people are approached during the year at unseasonal times, and told…we need to buy medicine for people who are sick and cannot pay for it themselves, and they are coming to us…and we don’t have the money, PEOPLE WILL GIVE! Wouldn’t you? Someone needs an operation which will cost X amount of dollars. Can you please help with this cost? I would.

Another collection in Masses a couple of times a month for particular needs, with advance notice, is always answered generously. If people can give to build new church building…and their giving along with the other parishoners adds up to $100 million dollars in a 3 year period, then I believe people will give even more to help society’s poor who need medical attention that will not be provided for them by the state. Part of the problem with people not giving in today’s world is that people have the misconception that the tax dollars that they are paying are taking care of the poor. Take that away, let them keep their money, and make sure they know that the government has no place in medical care…that it is up to the people to provide…and they will give.

And the poor will be given the motivation to go out and do as much for themselves as is possible. With the way things are now, medical attention is not freely given by the government unless you are unemployed. This works against poor people who want to work and provide for their families, but are unable to pay that $20,000 medical bill. Or the $500 perscription every month for heart and blood pressure medicine. Capitalism will work if the government got out of the medical industry.

 

[estesbob]

What do you mean declining morality? People who considered themselves left-winged have a different concept of morality than those who are right-winged.

For some information, consider Jonathan Haidt’s model:

faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pdf

And yes, the left-wing is out of touch.

When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.

GK Chesterton

 

[Wolseley]

How do you hold accountable a government that holds itself immune from prosecution?

It’s not just the government, Cherie. CEO’s of giant corporations get away with tricks that would have you or me under the jail.

We don’t have liberal rule in this country; nor do we have conservative rule. What we have is the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

And if you have enough money, you can get away with just about anything.

 

[dmelosi]

What do you mean declining morality? People who considered themselves left-winged have a different concept of morality than those who are right-winged.

For some information, consider Jonathan Haidt’s model:

faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pdf

And yes, the left-wing is out of touch.

The radical left is what I said in my previous post and what I meant is that they make up their own rules on what is moral or not. I also put "most liberals’ in the same category.
God’s laws do not come into play.

Notice that I did not say that the right wing follows God’s laws.

But those that do not believe in God are leading the decline and taking many who do believe with them.

 

[ribozyme]

It’s not just the government, Cherie. CEO’s of giant corporations get away with tricks that would have you or me under the jail.

We don’t have liberal rule in this country; nor do we have conservative rule. What we have is the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

And if you have enough money, you can get away with just about anything.

Well, you could mitigate the negative impact of that by lowering the gini coefficient.

 

[bobzills]

When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.

GK Chesterton

This is a false statement. There are atheists who do not beleive in astrology for example.

 

[estesbob]

This is a false statement. There are atheists who do not beleive in astrology for example.

He didnt say “everything”

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

It’s not just the government, Cherie. CEO’s of giant corporations get away with tricks that would have you or me under the jail.

We don’t have liberal rule in this country; nor do we have conservative rule. What we have is the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

And if you have enough money, you can get away with just about anything.

But the way they are allowed to get away with everything is our court systems. So, in all sincerity, how do you think this could be fixed, other than with more competition to keep those CEO’s of major corporations from having so much unequal power? I am not saying that other things don’t need reform. Many things need to be fixed in major ways. But until we demand it, things will keep getting worse and worse.

In Louisiana, the legislation voted to raise its own salary by some 250%. It was vetoed by the governor, but many of those who voted for the raise are now the objects of voter recalls to their offfices. People have control if they just excercise it. The governor of California was voted out of office because of his corruption. People in this country need to stop just talking and start acting on what is in their power to act on. Good people need to start running for office. And the money doesn’t need to be a major factor. It doesn’t cost anything to walk around a district or for volunteers to walk around other parts of a district to talk with people one on one. It doesn’t cost any money to listen to what people have to say. It doesn’t cost much money at all to send out emails to companies and citizens telling them of the platform one is running on. And when a good person is elected for office, he needs to remember that he is working for the consituents…they are not there to make him more powerful or rich. Until these things start happening, how can we expect change?

 

[seekerz]

I believe that there would be doctors and hospitals in the Church that would be much lower in cost that private run business hospitals. And the competition would drive the cost of medical care to go down. Especially if middle class Americans understand what is going on. They, along with the poor have been robbed by the medical industry.

Others with experience could offer medical equipment at lower costs, and many more people will buy from them…and the quality would probably be better than someone who does not consider God to be the almighty dollar.
That will cause competition, and costs will go down.

People give seasonally because that is when they are bombarded with requests, and it being a season of giving, they give more at those times.
The truth is, places and things like EWTN depend on charity all year long, and they always recieve it. Why? Because they are proven to do good things with the money. Why? Because the donators know exactly what the money is being used for.

So, if the people are approached during the year at unseasonal times, and told…we need to buy medicine for people who are sick and cannot pay for it themselves, and they are coming to us…and we don’t have the money, PEOPLE WILL GIVE! Wouldn’t you? Someone needs an operation which will cost X amount of dollars. Can you please help with this cost? I would.

Another collection in Masses a couple of times a month for particular needs, with advance notice, is always answered generously. If people can give to build new church building…and their giving along with the other parishoners adds up to $100 million dollars in a 3 year period, then I believe people will give even more to help society’s poor who need medical attention that will not be provided for them by the state. Part of the problem with people not giving in today’s world is that people have the misconception that the tax dollars that they are paying are taking care of the poor. Take that away, let them keep their money, and make sure they know that the government has no place in medical care…that it is up to the people to provide…and they will give.

And the poor will be given the motivation to go out and do as much for themselves as is possible. With the way things are now, medical attention is not freely given by the government unless you are unemployed. This works against poor people who want to work and provide for their families, but are unable to pay that $20,000 medical bill. Or the $500 perscription every month for heart and blood pressure medicine. Capitalism will work if the government got out of the medical industry.

I’m going to deal with both you responses above in the same post.

States such as Texas and Virginia put in place caps that are nowhere nearly as high as the figures you quoted above. What happened as far as I’m able to find out is that premiums did not decrease as expected and in some cases increased regardless. I’m not aware that the cost of care decreased in any of those states.

As for people giving, sure they will but* how much *is the pertinent question. Catholic doctors and hospitals still have the same expenses as “regular” hospitals so to expect them to provide cheaper care without other parts of the equation (outlined in the preceding paragraph) changing is just wishful thinking.

Unbridled capitalism is part of the reason health care is in such a mess. Just look at the price of drugs in this country compared to outside (for the same drug!). Since the demand for health care is likely to go up rather than down, I fail to see how the price is going to go down without some major overhauls of our present system. With that being the situation, it’s hard to envisage doctors taking a pay cut or medical equipment companies dropping their prices just with tort reform. It’s a beautiful fantasy that’s not going to happen.

To my knowledge, the government is the only entity with the wherewithal to collect the vast sums needed to provide health care for large numbers of the less fortunate so we may not have a choice but to let them do it.

There has to be a point where wishful thinking meets reality and I believe our nation is at that point…

 

[Dale_M]

Why is it that your faith in humanity is so low? Most ordinary people will give when they see a need.

Yes, for awhile. But their well of patience soon runs dry. Occasionally relying upon donations is fine, but it just doesn’t work well for long-term, day after day, week after week needs.